Research programs
Six standing questions.
Programs are lines of inquiry, not committees. Each keeps its own theses, frameworks, reading order, open problems and feed.
How do we measure where the law is genuinely unsettled?
Telling a research gap from a genuine doctrinal split, and measuring the difference instead of hiding it.
What does it take for a legal proposition to be safe to rely on?
Moving verification from 'is this case good law' to 'is this proposition usable here, now, for this client'.
How should machines model the other side's best case and allocate burdens?
Building the counter-model and tracking who must prove what, instead of generating rebuttals.
How do we represent law so that it can be versioned, queried and audited?
Propositions, treatment and inference as first-class objects, governed like a versioned codebase.
What are the non-negotiable design rules for legal AI?
Reliability designed into the architecture, not inspected in after the fact.
What remains for judges and lawyers once machines verify the law?
Decomposition, not automation: separating what a machine can check from what belongs to judgment.